Australian chiropractor claims to be able to treat colic.
Recent news of the UK McTimoney Association (MCA) for chiropractors letter to members, urging them to take down their websites has brought the reputation of the industry into question.
The story was broken by Andy Lewis from Quackometer, who published the letter in full on his website. An article, written by Chris French, detailing the events, was published today in the Guardian. You can read the full article here, but, briefly it says;
——
On May 20, 2009, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) published its adjudication on whether chiropractors Dr Carl Irwin and Associates “could substantiate the implied claim that their therapies could successfully treat some of the conditions mentioned, in particular IBS, colic and learning difficulties”. The relevant part of the adjudication reads as follows:
We considered that, whilst some of the studies indicated that further research was worth pursuing, in particular in relation to the chiropractic relief of colic, we had not seen robust clinical evidence to support the claim that chiropractic could treat IBS, colic and learning difficulties.
On these points the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health and Beauty Products and Therapies).
Simon Perry, the founder of Skeptics in the Pub, Leicester, was so incensed by the British Chiropractic Association’s libel case against Simon Singh, he decided to do something about making sure this legislation was enforced. He searched chiropractic websites, collating those that claimed to treat colic or else implied that chiropractic was an effective treatment for this condition and reported 174 for breaching the advertising standards code. In response, the MCA sent a letter to their members advising them to do the following;
——–
“If you have a website, take it down NOW. REMOVE all the blue MCA patient information leaflets, or any patient information leaflets of your own that state you treat whiplash, colic or other childhood problems in your clinic”
“If you use business cards or other stationery using the ‘doctor’ title and it does not clearly state that you are a doctor of chiropractic or that you are not a registered medical practitioner, STOP USING THEM immediately.
“Be wary of ‘mystery shopper’ phone calls and ‘drop ins’ to your practice, especially if they start asking about your care of children, or whiplash, or your evidence base for practices.
“Finally, we strongly suggest you do NOT discuss this with others, especially patients, Firstly it would not be ethical to burden patients with this, though if they ask we hope you now have information with which you can respond.
Most importantly, this email and all correspondence from the MCA is confidential advice to MCA members alone, and should not be shared with anyone else.”
—–
One would have thought it would be more responsible to advise members to simply not use therapies for which there is no evidence, particularly when it comes to treating children. But then quacks will be quacks…
And now it appears we have the same problem in Australia. The article below appeared in a regional newspaper this week and was sent to me by a reader;
(emphasis is from reader).
The text says;
“Chiropractic treatment has also been shown to provide significant benefits for the treatment of colic. Research from the University of Southern Denmark found that spinal manipulation is effective in relieving infantile colic. Chiropractors use safe and gentle procedures to correct spinal misalignments affecting the nervous system. Chiropractors believe that trauma during the birth process can be a factor in the development of colic”.
I don’t know the laws in Australia regarding this, but given the smackdown the Arnica Montana website received this week from the Complaints Resolution Panel, this looks like a potential breach of the code.
In any case I plan to write a letter to the editior about this, citing the fact that there is no evidence for chiropractic being beneficial in colic. You should too; letters should be less than 250 words. Name, address, and phone number is required (can be withheld on request). Email editor@surfcoasttimes.com.au, snail mail, PO Box 714 Torquay VIC 3228, fax 5264 8413.
Thanks @eemyoo for the tip-off.
—-
UPDATE: Thanks to eemyoo for sourcing the CHIROPRACTORS REGISTRATION BOARD OF VICTORIA STANDARDS OF PRACTICE GUIDELINES for ADVERTISING.
The sections this advertorial appear to breach appear below;
For the purpose of these Guidelines, advertising…..includes situations where practitioners make themselves available for, or provide information to, media reports, magazine articles or advertorials.
Advertising general guidelines; Chiropractors must be certain that they can substantiate any claims made in advertising material, particularly in relation to outcomes of treatment, whether implied or explicitly stated.
5.2 What is unacceptable advertising? a) create or be likely to create unwarranted and unrealistic expectations about the effectiveness of the chiropractic services to be provided
Toni McCaffery has had enough.
Late last week, someone calling themselves “where are the facts” left a comment on my post about the Channel 7 story, asking some very anti-vax-like questions about the death of Dana McCaffery.
You know the type;
“Was Dana a premature baby? Was Dana breastfed? As a baby suposedly (sic) receives antibodies from the mum in the first eight weeks of life. Did Dana receive the Hepatitus (sic) B injection? Did Dana receive the Vitamin K injection? Did Dana have any reactions to these injections? Was Dana on any medication, etc?.”
Thereby, strongly inferring that pertussis, or whooping cough was not the cause of Dana’s death. I find this highly offensive and told @watf as much.
These type of questions were part of the reason why Toni and David McCaffery spoke out in the first place. They were appalled that the AVN, and in particular Meryl Dorey, were suggesting that the official cause of death (according to the Dept. of Health) as pertussis, was simply a plot by authorities and government to force people to get vaccinated.
But, as we have come to expect with the AVN, just about everything that involves conventional medicine is deemed a conspiracy of some sort; Big Pharma is only interested in money and not our health; they want to keep us sick to make more money; vaccines have never been tested, vaccination causes disease, etc etc. These are the kind of people who wouldn’t surprise you if they told you that the world is flat, the Holocaust didn’t happen and that 911 was a government/inside job.
But, this post was so offensive, Toni McCaffery decided she had well and truly had enough of the misinformation, half-truths and outright lies spread by these people. She responded to @watf to tell them precisely that, the facts.
I am amazed by the strength and resolve of Toni McCaffery at a time like this. But, as she says below, she has had enough of the AVN and associated cronies and their nasty intent to somehow prove that pertussis was not the cause of Dana’s death.
It was. It’s that simple. Pertussis can be deadly, for every 1 in 200 children. Three babies have died from infections in Australia this year.
Wake up anti-vaxers. And learn some respect.
Toni’s comment is re-posted below, with her permission. You can see the entire comments thread here.
—–
@where are the facts
Where is your sense of human decency? Your comments are the most hateful and hurtful words that any grieving parent could read.
As Dana’s parents, we are absolutely outraged that groups such as the AVN are intent on proving that Pertussis did not kill her and is not dangerous. We expected opposition to vaccination, but it is unacceptable and despicable that we have to ‘prove’ that Pertussis killed her. Haven’t we suffered enough – now we have to defend the very thing that killed her.
We are outraged that without our knowledge, Meryl Dorey rang the Director of the NCAHS Public Health Unit on 12 March seeking details on Dana’s death and contended the department had misled the public.
Even after I told Meryl what happened to Dana at the debate, a few weeks afterwards I found an AVN blog with members making false claims that stated they had information she was sick from birth, immune-compromised from the HiB vaccine or died as a result of the antibiotics or medical treatment she received.
Not only is no-one privy to this information, it is wrong and extremely distressing. In the latest Living Wisdom, Meryl got every fact wrong about Dana – her age, when she died, where she might have caught it, when the last death was and uses language to downplay the seriousness.
I am pleading with the AVN to leave my beautiful daughter alone and stop this misleading chatter. And I plead to other parents, please do not expose your child to this dangerous disease.
Don’t you think as Dana’s parents, watching every agonising moment of her death, we would know what killed her. We undertook extensive research and spoke with the specialists over several weeks to understand what happened.
Let me be very clear. She was born in perfect health, was breastfed and was putting on weight. Nothing is sacred. We decided to speak out after reading comments in media and blog sites that dismissed the severity of whooping cough, claims of ‘only one baby’, criticisms that we had not acted quickly and that I had not passed on immunity to Dana through breastfeeding.
Reading this blog is almost too much to bear!
Let me be very, very clear – Pertussis can and does kill 1 in 200 babies. Sadly, THREE babies have died in Australia this year – we are the only family to go public and I wouldn’t recommend it. If your baby is ‘the one’ – it is unstoppable.
The intensive care experts were in contact with experts all around the world and tried everything. I stood and watched them try to save her and did the unthinkable and wished she had cancer instead, because maybe then she would have had a chance.
Meryl might call what we have done a fear campaign. We call it a reality check. We only wished someone had warned us of the epidemic as we would have done everything in our power to protect Dana from catching it.
We saw the healthiest, most beautiful baby suffer the most agonising death – and there was nothing we could do.
We will not stand by and let this happen to another family.
Please STOP DEBATING our daughter’s death. Show some respect and leave Dana in peace. We are so sorry we have exposed our beautiful girl to such hurtful people.
—
Please note: Comment threads that are deemed offensive, at the discretion of the author, will be removed from this post out of respect. Comments are now closed.
Homeopathy gets a smackdown, and the death of a toddler under tragic circumstances at an alt-med clinic.
But first up, some good news for consumer protection in Australia.
Today’s alternative medicine smack-down comes to you courtesy of a sceptical colleague, Michael, who submitted a complaint to our government regulator, The Complaints Resolution Panel, several months ago. Michael’s complaints pertained to a homeopathy website, arnicamontana.com.au which was spruiking all manner of dubious products and making equally dubious claims.
Arnica Montana sell homeopathic first aid kits, homeopathic remedies for emergencies, makes claims that homeopathy is useful for serious health conditions and also tow the anti-vax line, in articles promoting the AVN and bragging about refusing the whooping cough vaccine.
This week Michael was advised that all his complaints were upheld and as a result, Arnica Montana were instructed to comply with the following sanctions: Withdrawal of Advertisement, Withdrawal of Representation and Publication of Retraction.
Regular listeners to the Zone may remember I called these people out back in February, just after the Victorian bush fires, after a listener alerted me to a passage on their website which said the following;
“In the light of recent events in Bali and the bush fires in the Eastern States of Australia information about the use of Homeopathy by the ordinary person is knowledge that should be shared.”
I called this claim offensive, not only to the deceased in Bali and Victoria, but also to the skilled health professionals working tirelessly with the burns victims using medicine and science, not magic water. Indeed, these particular claims were questioned by Michael and upheld by The Panel. You can see the full list below.
The advertiser was given an opportunity to respond to the criticisms, and rejected the allegation that there was “anything deceptive or misleading” in the advertisement/website. They claimed that the website was “intended to be an information website to educate the public about the use of homeopathic remedies” but not to the exclusion of any other system of medicine.
But the Panel deemed the website breached sections of the code which prohibit advertisements for products that;
“abuse the trust or exploit the knowledge of consumers” and was “likely to arouse unwarranted and unrealistic expectations of product effectiveness”.
This was based on the panel’s finding that “….no persuasive evidence was provided that the advertised products could have benefits in relation to the wide range of conditions referred to”.
In response the advertiser stated that “controlled trials cannot be used for homeopathy but [that] there is a mass of unpublished evidence”. (Is this because when they are used, they almost always turn up negative?).
In any case, there have testimonials all over the website…isn’t this evidence enough? Not for the Panel, who also called these into question, by stating that the advertiser did not provide evidence that any of the testimonials in the advertisement were genuine.
According to the advertising code; testimonials “must be documented, genuine, not misleading and illustrate typical cases only”. The panel cited this testimonial as an example of a breach;
“the calendula cream I make is specific to cancer skin keratoses and I have successfully treated many of these and established melanonas by using the sage cream at night and the calendula during the day”.
Overall, Michael received 9 pages of correspondence and I waded through all of it, which I’m very glad I did because buried deep in the text was this.
The Panel noted that the advertisement breached section 4(5) of the code; “..by implying that other therapeutic goods (namely vaccines and sunscreens) could be harmful….”
So it is unlawful to imply that other therapeutic goods are harmful, like vaccines? I wonder where this places the AVN? (Although given that they do not sell therapeutic goods, to the best of my knowledge, then I don’t think they are breaching this section of the code). This is a very interesting piece of legislation and one that I will file away for future reference.
One of the big things about the decision was that The Panel deemed the entire website to be an advertisement.
Since it was clear that the website offered a range of products for sale, the Panel was satisfied it constituted an advertisement for therapeutic goods. Interestingly, the complaint summary cites the subject matter of the complaint as “website advertisement” and the sanctions as “withdrawal of advertisement”, thus implying the entire website is to be withdrawn. If you go to the website, you will see the published retraction, but the remainder of the website still functions as normal. I wonder when and if we will see the entire website removed.
Not a very happy UK homeopathy week for some…
The tragic death of a toddler in a freak accident at an alt-med clinic.
What makes this story even more sad is that the death occurred in the Favira clinic in Adelaide, which is the home of Elvira Brunt, an alternative therapist who claims to be able to cure cancer with massage. More on this is a moment, but reports say the 18-month-old girl was crushed to death by a massage table while her mother was being treated.
A police inspector who attended the scene said; “A young, 18-month-old child, a girl, has died as a result of being trapped in a component of a massage table…the child was under the table when it started to be lowered.”
Regular readers might remember the Favira alternative medicine clinic from a previous Dr Rachie when I mentioned that she has advised the father of a young girl with leukemia to feed her KFC to get her kidneys functioning again. A current parliamentary enquiry in South Australia had received several submissions from members of the public about the dubious practices of Ms Brunt. Tragically, the enquiry is ongoing, hence Elvira Brunt is still practicing.
On the same day that the child died the Enquiry into Bogus, Unregistered and Deregistered Health Practitioners report named Elvira Brunt, as a person of interest, for allegedly claiming she could cure cancer through abdominal massage, encouraging patients to stop normal treatment and requiring cash payments for services.
Other alternative therapists to be “named and shamed” were ELIZABETH GOLDWAY, for allegedly saying she could cure cancer, charging thousands of dollars for treatment and not providing receipts. MONICA MILKA, for allegedly claiming she could cure cancer with injections to “kill the worms” that were causing the problem. LUBOMIR BATELKA, who allegedly subjected a patient to “vaginal blowing” with an ozone therapy machine, saying it offered a “50 per cent cure” for cancer.
The member of parliament, Ian Hunter who tabled the report said;
“While some . . . practitioners may be delusional – convinced they are able to cure serious medical conditions – the evidence presented to the committee suggested that others are driven by greed and, in some cases, sexual gratification.” “The committee heard shocking stories from people who said their loved ones had been exploited when they were at their most vulnerable, who were given false hope and who wasted thousands of dollars on bogus treatments,” he said.
The committee stated while most practitioners were ethical, proper regulation, monitoring, and exposure of unethical behaviour was needed. The committee recommended the State Government establish legislation, similar to the code of conduct introduced in New South Wales last year, to regulate health practitioners and mechanisms to monitor them.
Although it seems likely that Elvira Brunt will be banned from practicing eventually, it will be too little too late for many, including now an 18-month-old girl. You can read the full story here.
Update on “a register for quacks” letter to the editor
Wow. David Colquhoun is published in the Herald.
Perhaps there really is a “tsunami of change” occurring. This is brilliant.
Source: Sydney Morning Herald
Quack cracks
—
One has to wonder about the sincerity of naturopaths and other alternative therapists who want to get rid of “quacks” through the establishment of a national register (“Register to hit shonks”, smh.com.au, June 14).
In NSW, a code of conduct for unregistered practitioners was introduced in August last year. It says they “must not make claims to cure certain serious illnesses”, including cancer; and that they must display the code and information about how to contact the Health Care Complaints Commission.
In my recent visits to places of practice, I have not seen the code displayed. I have also been told that a $12,000 course of homeopathy can cure my cancer.
Given the lack of adherence to this legislation, I can’t help but wonder if a new register is simply a stunt to distract us from the fact that many alternative “therapies” are as useful as a placebo. By definition, complementary and alternative remedies are unproven. Alternative medicine that is proven to work is called medicine.
Dr Rachael Dunlop, vice-president, Australian Skeptics, Petersham
—
It appears Australia is about to repeat Britain’s mistakes about regulation of alternative medicine. It should be self-evident that it makes no sense to set educational standards in a subject without having decided whether that subject is nonsense. If it is, what does “educational standards” mean?
Your article cites naturopathy, which subscribes to a form of pre-19th-century vitalism. I fail to understand what it means to be properly qualified in ideas that the educated world left behind 200 years ago.
David Colquhoun, research professor of pharmacology, University College London
—
Chris Logan (Letters, June 15) tells us it was the failure of homeopathy devotees to accept expert advice that resulted in the death of their daughter. On the contrary, Thomas Sam is a highly expert homeopath – he is a BSc, bachelor of homeopathic medicine and surgery, has a master’s in public health and was a senior lecturer in medical science at the Sydney College of Homeopathic Medicine.
The problem is that “expertise” in the pseudo-science that is homeopathy is of no value to a sick child, hence Sam’s conviction.
Matthew Collaery, Wanniassa (ACT)
Homeopathy website ordered to publish retraction for dubious claims
Some good news to report regarding consumer protection. And news that it is illegal to imply that other therapeutic goods, including vaccines, are harmful.
Unfortunately, it has become all too common commonplace that SCAMs (Supplementary, Complementary and Alternative Medicine) make unsubstantiated claims about their products and services.
It has also become commonplace that they get away with making such claims, seemingly without consequence.
As was the case when I was told at the Mind Body Wallet festival that my friend’s cancer could be cured with an AUD12,000 course of fruit juice diets, detox and herbs/supplements. Claims such as these are illegal in New South Wales under section 5 of the Code of Conduct for Unregistered Practitioners which states that;
“Health practitioners not to make claims to cure certain serious illnesses. (1) A health practitioner must not hold him or herself out as qualified, able or willing to cure cancer and other serious illnesses”.
So it was a surprise to see this happen today.
This is the work of a sceptical colleague, Michael, who issued a lengthy complaint to the Complaints Resolution Panel of the Therapeutic Goods Administration some time ago. Recently he received a 9 page facsimile advising that his complaints about Arnica Montana, a purveyor of homeopathy, regarding breaches of section 4(1)(b), 4(2)(a), 4(2)(b), 4(2)(c), 4(2)(d), 4(2)h, 4(2)(i), 4(7) and 5(2) of the advertising code were deemed valid.
Arnica Montana Enterprises Pty Ltd were instructed to comply with the following sanctions: Withdrawal of Advertisement, Withdrawal of Representation and Publication of Retraction. This involved publishing a retraction on the website which appears below.
Regular listeners to the Skeptic Zone and readers of the Zoners blog may recall I called these people out back in February for issuing a statement on their website about the use of homeopathy for severe burns and recommending its use for the victims of the Victorian Bush fires, known as “Black Saturday”, the worst natural disaster in Australia’s history. The website stated; “In the light of recent events in Bali and the bush fires in the Eastern States of Australia information about the use of Homeopathy by the ordinary person is knowledge that should be shared.”
The advertiser was given an opportunity to respond to the criticisms, and rejected the allegation that there was “anything deceptive or misleading” in the advertisement/website. The advertiser claimed that the website was “intended to be an information website to educate the public about the use of homeopathic remedies” but not to the exclusion of any other system of medicine.
But The Panel found that the advertisement breached sections of the code which prohibit advertisements for products that “abuse the trust or exploit the knowledge of consumers” and was “likely to arouse unwarranted and unrealistic expectations of product effectiveness”.
This was based on the finding that “the advertisement included claims of benefits in relation to burns, scalds, pain, traumatic shock, severe burns….no persuasive evidence was provided that the advertised products could have benefits in relation to the wide range of conditions referred to”.
Evidence? Why do you need evidence? The advertiser stated “controlled trials cannot be used for homeopathy but [that] there is a mass of unpublished evidence” and stated that they “would be grateful to know which section of the Code requires published scientific evidence as a precondition to advertising”. Besides they have testimonials all over their website…but wait, they were called into question too.
The Panel stated that the advertiser did not provide evidence that any of the testimonials in the advertisement were genuine.
According to the code; Section 4(7) requires that testimonials “must be documented, genuine, not misleading and illustrate typical cases only”. The panel found that the advertiser did not provide any evidence that the testimonials were genuine, and cited this as an example;
“the calendula cream I make is specific to cancer skin keratoses and I have successfully treated many of these and established melanonas by using the sage cream at night and the calendula during the day”.
Interesting that it unlawful to publish testimonials that are not genuine or “atypical”. This could apply to many a woo website.
But then this;
The Panel noted that the advertisement breached section 4(5) of the code;
“..by implying that other therapeutic goods (namely vaccines and sunscreens) could be harmful….”
If you search the website for vaccination, you will get hits for the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN), Meryl Dorey and other misinformation that we have come to expect from the anti-vaxers. (Who would have thought, a homeopath condemning vaccination). I wonder where does the AVN website sit with respect to this? Would their website be deemed an advertisement? After all, they do sell literature and DVDS, but I suspect these products do not come under the auspices of “therapeutic goods”.
An advertisement is defined by The Code “…to include any statement, pictorial representation or design, however made, that is intended, whether directly or indirectly, to promote the use or supply of the goods”.
This is why the entire arnica montana website was deemed an advertisement; the Panel noted that it was clear that the website offered a range of products for sale, and was satisfied that the website as a whole constituted an advertisement for therapeutic goods.
Interestingly, the complaint summary cites the subject matter of the complaint as “website advertisement” and the sanctions as “withdrawal of advertisement”, thus implying the entire website is to be withdrawn. If you go to the website, you will see the published retraction, but the remainder of the website still functions as normal.
And if you think there’s no harm in homeopathy, then see this story.
A register for quacks and bad science journalism.
Wow, what a stinker this article turns out to be. Not just because of the content, but also the credulity of the journalists.
This story appeared on SMH online today. It details plans to establish a register for quacks, apparently in an attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff. Sounds a little bit like the register set up in the UK recently and blogged about here.
I read this article with trepidation, firstly because I think putting quacks on a register lends legitimacy to their profession and this is undeserved in my opinion.
“The industry’s reputation was dealt a blow this month after the NSW Supreme Court convicted a homeopath of the manslaughter of his nine-month-old daughter, who died of septicemia caused by chronic eczema.”
Yes, the industry was dealt a blow, but this was not because of a shonky homeopath, this was because homeopathy does not work in the treatment of eczema. Or any other illness in fact. A meta-analysis published in the Lancet in 2005 compared 110 conventional and homeopathy trials and the effect of homeopathy was deemed no greater than placebo (Shang et al., Lancet 2005; 366: 726–32).
An editorial which appeared in the same issue of the Lancet stated; “despite 150 years of unfavourable findings…the more dilute the evidence for homeopathy becomes, the greater seems its popularity.” Why we keep wasting money and good science on testing it, to continually get the same answer is beyond me.
The article continues;
University of Queensland researcher Jon Wardle, who heads a steering committee to set-up a register said; “We are making sure that when the public sees a naturopath they have training, act ethically and if something goes wrong, there is a complaints procedure,” he said. Mr Wardle said the lack of formal accreditation meant people with as little as one week’s training could call themselves naturopaths and it is these people who dispense a large quantity homeopathic remedies.
This is where I get annoyed. Firstly, there is a complaints procedure in NSW. It was established with the new Code of Conduct for Unregistered Practitioners which was introduced in August 2008. Section 17 of the code states that practitioners must display the Code and information about the way in which clients may make a complaint to the HCCC if necessary.
Funny that, I went to Mind Body Wallet a few weeks back armed with my code and saw it displayed nowhere, neither at stalls doing invasive procedures such as live blood analysis, or massage or anywhere.
I have to say, I am not convinced that the relevant regulatory bodies/associations or members of them are particularly concerned about following the rules when it comes to legislation. In NSW at least, they seem to have dutifully ignored conforming to this recent legislation. I am suspicious that the establishment of a nationwide register is really just a sneaky way to add undeserved legitimacy to profession where there is scant evidence for efficacy.
But this is not the worst part about this article. The article was penned by 2 journalists, Rachel Browne and Melissa Singer, neither of whom seem to understand much about what constitutes conventional medicine or doctors. They refer to a British podiatrist and homeopath Tariq Khan, as Dr Khan. This is misleading and infers that Khan is a clinical doctor, naturopaths use the title ND, (and referred to by some as not a doctor). They tell us that Dr Khan recommends homeopathy be used in conjunction with conventional treatment. And of course a homeopath is going to endorse the use of homeopathy.
The man apparently had talks with the head of dermatology at St George Hospital, Dedee Murrell, to discuss using homeopathic remedies for an incurable disease, the rare genetic condition epidermolysis bullosa. Let me state that again. Homeopathy as treatment for an incurable disease. This following the beginning of the article where the journalists discuss the parents of Gloria Thomas being charged with manslaughter for shunning conventional medicine and treating their daughter’s eczema with homeopathy. She subsequently died.
This is very poor journalism. To begin an article with charges of manslaughter for a homeopathy-related death and then discuss using it for incurable diseases is just credulous on the part of Rachel and Melissa.
But then this; “The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the Australasian Integrative Medicine Association have given qualified support to the use of complementary medicine where there is research about its outcomes.”
Precisely Rachel and Melissa. There is research. To show it does nought. Take a look at the Lancet article. Visit PubMed for goodness sake. Do some research, please.
Update on homeopathy death and response in the letters page
Following is the response to yesterday’s blog about a letter from a dermatologist to the newspaper, pleading with parents to adhere to medical advice.
Reproduced from the Sydney Morning Herald from June 9 and 10.
———
Treatment is a sore point
Dr Gayle Fischer says eczema is “readily treated” by modern medicine (letters June 8). As the mother of a child who has suffered eczema from six weeks to her current age of 22 I consider this a fantasy of self-belief.
Western medicine does not treat eczema well. Parents who slather their children in Sorbolene, do not use soap and do all the other things they are told to do to “manage” the disease are treated as whingers when they tell doctors the treatment is not working.
They are intimidated from seeking further help until the disease is so out of control that the fear of being labelled a whinger is outstripped by desperate concern for the welfare of their child. The casualty department rides in on a white charger, doses the child up with steroids for a few days and bingo, aren’t we wonderful? Until the next time.
When Western medical practitioners in India saw my daughter had severe eczema they told me to try homeopathy, which has a good record there – a much more honest assessment of the strengths and interests of Western medicine than Dr Fischer’s.
Ellen McEwen Croydon
What is natural about rejecting treatment?
Gayle Fischer is right to be concerned about the disturbing trend of parents shunning effective medical treatments for their children on the basis that “natural” equals good (letters June 9). I recently heard a parent say that vaccination “seems unnatural”. I admit polio is more natural than vaccination, but avoiding a natural case of polio by unnatural means is preferable for the child.
Sadly, a child has died because of her parents’ misguided belief in homeopathy. The authorities seem to be doing nothing about the consistently false claims made by homeopaths. In a few minutes of browsing the internet I found them claiming homeopathy could protect people against swine flu, and that vaccination and anti-viral drugs should be avoided because they weaken the immune system.
Guy Curtis Seven Hills
——
Western doctors in India may well have recommended homeopathy to Ellen McEwen (Letters, June 9). But did it work?
Anne Kirman Kellyville
——–
If you wish to respond to this debate, write to the Sydney Morning Herald, letters to the editor.
Dermatologist frustrated by parents rejection of medicine
Whilst the Australian Homeopathic Association (AHA) continues to claim that homeopathy can be used to treat eczema.
Readers may recall last week’s guilty verdict in the court case against parents whose daughter died of septicaemia as a result of severe eczema. A letter in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, from a dermatologist working in pediatrics, questions why parents are turning towards alternative medicine and reminds us that medicine could have saved 9 month old Gloria.
Gayle Fischer, a senior lecturer in dermatology at Sydney University says;
“I am frustrated by the increasing preference of parents for complementary therapy over scientifically tested, safe and effective medical treatment. I frequently find myself unable to help children like Gloria because of their parents’ unshakeable fear and distrust of Western medicine. I hear the term “toxic chemicals” to describe what we use”.
You can read the entire letter here, an extract appears below..
Gloria Thomas died because her parents refused modern medicine and instead chose to treat her with “homeopathic drops.” Even after a GP referred them to a dermatologist, they missed two appointments, instead relying on advice from the father’s brother, who has recently finished his homeopathic thesis on eczema and the father himself, who is also a practicing homeopath. When her parents presented in hospital with Gloria with what they thought was conjunctivitis, it was discovered she had an eye infection so severe, her cornea had virtually melted away.
An eye specialist said she would have lost at least one eye due to an extreme vitamin A deficiency usually only seen in Third World countries.
“Probably only a third of the cornea was left [in the left eye], the rest had melted completely … there was virtually no cornea left,” he told the court. “I think it would have been impossible to reconstruct that eye and I think that eye would have been lost.”
She died shortly after from septicaemia as a result of severe eczema. Which makes it seem rather odd that the AHA publish a pamphlet that claims they can treat eczema.
You can see the complete pamphlets in pdf form page 1 here and page 2 here.
Thanks to Jo and Richard for the tip offs.
Come join us at Sydney sceptics in the pub, we have a ball!
Sydney Skeptics in the pub was established 5 years ago by Richard Saunders, and has since gone from strength to strength.
The NSW Committee with Dick Smith, L-R Eran Segev, Philip Peters, Peter Rodgers, John Sweatman, Dick Smith, Richard Saunders, Rachael Dunlop and Peter Bowditch
This month was our biggest month ever with around 100 people attending to see a talk by Dick Smith. Dick is one of the founding members of Australian Skeptics and is known in Australia for his electronics chain Dick Smith Electronics, his “Dick Smith” range of foods (including “Dick Heads matches”) plus his legendary aviation achievements including flying to both poles solo, in a helicopter. Whilst Dick retired from active sceptical service some time ago, he is always around to give us a helping hand.
Pub and Think Tank regulars, Jason Brown (@drunkenmadman), Happy Singer (@HappySinger) and Alan Conradi.
Dick Smith holds the floor
If you are in Sydney, come along on the first Thursday of each month, to the Crown Hotel in central Sydney for a great night of sceptical fun! You can see more photos here.
A very busy pub night, with our youngest sceptic to date!
News from Simon Singh about his appeal
Simon has made the difficult decision to appeal the “bogus” ruling brought against him by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA).
News of the launch of a campaign in support of free speech appears below in an extract from an email sent from Simon.
—–
1. Court of Appeal and Campaign Launch
I am glad to say that on Monday I will apply to the Court of Appeal in an attempt to overturn the recent negative ruling on meaning in my libel case with the British Chiropractic Association.
Also, Sense About Science have launched a campaign linked to my libel case and focussing on the need to overhaul the English libel system, which is deeply flawed and which therefore has a chilling effect on journalism.
The campaign has issued a statement of support, which has already been signed by an incredible list of people, including James Randi, Richard Dawkins, Ricky Gervais, Sir Martin Rees, Penn & Teller, Stephen Fry, Martin Amis and Steve Jones. It would be terrific if you would also sign up to the statement and (better still) encourage others to sign up. It is conceivable that this campaign could help reform the English libel laws (which unfortunately affect overseas journalists too). Please help us move closer to having a free press.
You can find the statement and sign up at: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/libelcampaign
2. Fighting Fund
I have had many kind and generous offers of financial help, but at the moment I am able to fund my own legal costs. However, if you would like to help, then please make a donation to Sense About Science, who will need funding to maintain what could be a long battle to reform the libel laws. You can find out how to donate at: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/336
—–
The statement now has over 4000 signatories and is gathering speed. Please spread the word about this, blog it, Facebook it, Tweet it. Simon needs our support. You can get the “Keep Libel Laws out of Science” button on your blog from Sense About Science.
